Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Vanessa Smith and Gloria Johnson.

Councillor Bridget Ley substitued for Councillor Vanessa Smith.

Councillor Helen Crawford substitued for Councillor Gloria Johnson.

Councillor Tim Harrison declared an interest in relation to agenda item 7, he left the Council Chamber for this item.

Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing declared an interest in relation to agenda item 4, he had registered to speak as a District Ward Councillor, he did not participate in the debate or vote.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2023 were AGREED as a correct record.

Proposal: Installation of 16(no) bay vehicle charging station with ancillary seating area and toilet facilities, and associated soft landscaping and infrastructure works (Revised submission of S23/0469)

Location: Land south of Tinwell Road, Stamford

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Installation of 16(no) bay vehicle charging station with ancillary seating area and toilet facilities, and associated soft landscaping and infrastructure works (Revised submission of S23/0469)

Location: Land south of Tinwell Road, Stamford

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillors:               Harrish Bisnauthsing

                                                        Richard Cleaver

Against:                                           Simon Machen

                                                        Steve Brown/Stuart Bremner (timeshare)

For:                                                  Adam Brookes

Applicant/Agent                               Sav Patel/Jake Goldby (timeshare)

Together with:

·       Provisions with SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Management policies, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplement Document and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals Planning Authority).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from Ministry of Defence.

·       Comments received from Stamford Town Council.

·       Comments received from Stamford Civic Society.

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection Team.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether Empingham Road, Stamford employment allocation had been identified as a possible site for this application.

One Member informed the Committee that the Empingham Road, Stamford site was allocated as employment land and was within close proximity to this proposed location.

The Assistant Director of Planning highlighted that the Empingham Road, Stamford site was not in front of the Committee for consideration as to whether it would be a suitable site for an EV charging station. The Committee were reminded that they were required to consider whether the proposed site (Land south of Tinwell Road, Stamford) was suitable for the proposed development.

·       Whether traffic could rejoin the A1 to travel North and South from Tinwell Road. It was confirmed that you could access the A1 to travel both North and South from Tinwell Road.

·       One Member sought clarification on possible crime that could occur which had been raised as a concern by residents.

It was noted that the nature of the site, being hidden and having good vehicular access may encourage anti-social behaviour with drivers coming on and off the A1. These were the basis of the main objections, alongside the proposal being in open countryside.

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that weight of public objection was not a material consideration in terms of the number of objectors. The Council had received 28 objections, with a further 2 included within the agenda supplement.

·       Whether any weight could be given to alternative site locations.

The Committee were reminded to consider the application as submitted and whether it was acceptable or not. One of the main factors of the chosen location by the applicant was related to the grid connection.

·       One Member queried whether the applicant had consulted with the local residents on the proposal and what their general opinion was.

·       Clarification was requested around a petrol station development on open countryside in Market Deeping and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Proposal: Change of use of grazing land to events venue

Location: Land to West of the Junction of Belvoir Road and Cliff Road, Woolsthorpe by Belvoir

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Change of use of grazing land to events venue

Location: Land to West of the Junction of Belvoir Road and Cliff Road, Woolsthorpe by Belvoir

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor:                   Robert Leadenham

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Melton Borough Council (Adjacent Local Authority).

·       Comments received from Woolsthorpe by Belvoir Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from The Gardens Trust.

·       Comments received from SKDC Tree Officer.

·       Comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Woodland Trust.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether Parishes that surrounded the site had come together to complain about noise.

·       Whether the new proposed access route would affect residents of Woolsthorpe by Belvoir by vehicles leaving an event late at night. 

·       The frequency of the proposed events was queried.

The Applicant had applied for the events for 6 months of the year, on 25 occasions, which equated to approximately one per week.

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       Whether the frequency of events proposed was provided by the Applicant or the Council.

It was confirmed that the Applicant’s were asked to provide a statement on their proposal, which suggested one event per week during the months in which the marquee was set up, which equated to approximately 25 events.

·       Concern was raised on the number of cars accessing the venue and the access route affecting several villages.

The access was not within the South Kesteven boundary. Lincolnshire County Council and Leicestershire County Council had no objections to the proposal.

The 12-month temporary approval proposed was to ensure that the venue impacts could be monitored and assessed before a permanent permission was considered.

·       How many cars between May-September would be using the same access route as the proposed venue, alongside other events taking place.

·       Clarification was sought on whether a weekend event could be held at the marquee, or whether it would strictly be a one day/night event.

The condition relating to number of events stated that the number of weddings/events should be limited to 25 per annum, unless otherwise agreed in writing. An addition to this condition could include the requirement for no more than one a wedding/event to be held per week, if Members considered that to be appropriate.  

·       One Member raised concern regarding the possibility of fireworks being let off at the venue and whether this could be a possibility every weekend. It was further queried as to whether this could be conditioned.

The Planning Officer clarified that the proposed condition was that all events must finish by midnight. It was unable to predict whether fireworks would take place at the events or not. Environmental protection could become involved if there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Proposal: Erection of 1(no) 3-bed dwelling with ancillary outbuilding / garage and installation of ground mounted solar array

Location: Land north of St. Mary Magdalene’s Church, Lower Bitchfield

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Erection of 1(no) 3-bed dwelling with ancillary outbuilding / garage and installation of ground mounted solar array

Location: Land north of St. Mary Magdalene’s Church, Lower Bitchfield

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Applicant:                  Martin Hewitt

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       No comments raised by from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS).

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Consultee.

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer.

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting)

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether road flooding of the road affected the access to the site.

The Applicant clarified that the bridge within Lower Bitchfield caused surface water flooding, however, this did not affect the proposed site.

·       Whether the Applicant would consider a landscaping plan.

The Applicant confirmed that the landscaping of the site would be kept as natural as possible. It was clarified that there was hedging on the eastern boundary of the side and that the proposed property would not be prominent from houses in Lower Bitchfield.

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       It was queried as to why the design was considered as such an outstanding quality and why that should overcome all of the other policy conflicts.

The DM Manager clarified that extensive discussions had taken place both pre-application stage and through the application between the Case Officer and the Council’s Urban Design Officer. As a planning judgement, the final design that had been submitted was considered to meet the provisions of the NPPF in terms of outstanding design. The Committee were reminded to weigh up the benefits and harm of the application, as the final decision makers.

·       Whether the proposal was a replacement dwelling or not.

The site was considered as undeveloped in terms of planning policy and in spatial terms within the open countryside because it was outside of any of the defined settlements within the Council’s Local Plan. 

·       Whether the proposal complied with any planning policies.

The DM Manager confirmed that the proposal was being considered as a whole in terms of development plan policies and any relevant national planning policies as material considerations.

·       The public benefits associated with the proposal were discussed.

The public benefit associated with a single dwelling would be a small contribution towards the local economy during construction. The report recommended that significant weight be given to high design standard and the ability to raise design standards within the area, as set out by the NPPF.

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that the application was required to be considered on balance in accordance with the development plan and any material considerations.

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Proposal: Change of use from Dwelling (Use Class C3) to Hotel (Use Class C1)

Location: 15 Swinegate, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Change of use from Dwelling (Use Class C3) to Hotel (Use Class C1)

Location: 15 Swinegate, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       No comments received from Grantham Civic Society.

·       No comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Consultee.

(Councillor Tim Harrison declared an interest on this application and left the chamber)

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       Clarification was sought that no changes would be made to the exterior or interior of the building.

The Planning Officer clarified the application was merely for the change of use.

·       Whether there was any external use of space on the site.

The proposed plan included the dwelling and external amenity space surrounding the building.

·       One Member queried whether a condition could be included on amenity space to protect surrounding neighbors.

It was advised that noise levels and the selling of alcohol would be considered by licensing and environmental protection.

·       Whether the car park was privately owned or a Council car park.

The car park within close vicinity of the site was a Council owned car park.

It was clarified that an application as a hotel or bed and breakfast were both within the same change of use class (C1).

Members discussed the appropriate location of the proposal.

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions:

Time Limit for Commencement

1)    The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Approved Plans

2)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

1.    Site Location Plan (Dated 4 October 2023)

2.    Site Plan (Ref: 06)

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

The annual publication of the Authority’s Monitoring Report (AMR) is a statutory requirement for all Local Authorities. The AMR covers the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and reviews progress in preparing development plans and the extent to which South Kesteven District Council’s policies have been put into effect.

(Councillors Paul Wood and Ian Stokes left the meeting at 17:00)

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning presented the report which met the Council’s statutory duty to monitor the effectiveness of policies adopted within the Council’s Local Plan, to ensure future development across South Kesteven was appropriate and sustainable.

The effectiveness of the Council’s Local Plan policies was assessed against an agreed monitoring framework as set out in Regulation 34 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012. These requirements included an assessment of the Council’s Local Plan policy measured against the plan monitoring and implication framework, progress of the emerging Local Plan, progress on any Neighborhood Plans in production and any cooperation with neighboring authorities.

The Committee were presented with a presentation on the Authority Monitoring Report, which outlined key points:

·       642 homes were completed in 2023, of which 151 were affordable homes.

·       75% of all completions were within the four main towns with 20% completed in Grantham.

·       A fixed 5-year housing land supply of 4077 dwellings equivalent to 5.2 years supply for one year (until 31 October 2023).

·       One Neighborhood Plan (Stamford) was formally made.

·       The Council had engaged on key strategic matters and responded to neighboring authority Local Plan consultations to fulfill our duty to cooperate.

Members thanked all Officers involved on the work produced.

Clarification was sought over the figures produced on completions, within Bourne (259) and in Grantham (95). It was queried as to why there were a higher number completed in Bourne than Grantham.

It was confirmed that Elsea Park in Bourne was a large development site in Bourne. Grantham was expected to deliver around half of the housing delivery in the future. 

One Member queried the progress against the target for Traveller provision.

Concern was raised on an updated local list of Heritage sites and listed buildings within the report.

It was questioned as to how sustainability was measured for housing supply in regard to healthcare. S106 funding was not covering the impact of health services and only focused on GPs rather than hospitals.

The Council were due to publish a Gypsy site review, alongside the consultation to the Local Plan review under Regulation 18. Gypsy and Traveller sites was due to be considered by Cabinet for approval of consultation in March 2024.

The Council were not required to provide a local list of heritage sites and listed buildings. A list would not provide a statutory protection to heritage buildings.

As part of the Council’s Local Plan, consultation takes with certain stakeholders (Lincolnshire County Council, NHS) on sustainability of housing supply. It was noted that S106 funding could be secured for hospital facilities, if requested and evidence of need is provided.

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED that the Planning Committee:

Endorses the 2022-23 Authority Monitoring Report and agrees to it being published via the Council’s website.

The Council will continue to monitor the indicators within the Monitoring and Implementation Framework and report annually.

To provide an update on Section 106 planning obligations and review the content of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (2022-2023) before its publication.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning presented the report and outlined the S106 planning obligations put in place under planning legislation and to secure necessary infrastructure improvements based on the Council’s planning policy requirement and to mitigate any adverse impacts of a development proposal.

The total money alone to be provided through planning obligation was over £7m, £3m of which would provide school places as a result of new developments.

In September 2023, the Council appointed a new Infrastructure Delivery Officer, who had the responsibility for monitoring S106 agreements as well as ensuring that any contributions received were spent accurately.

The Council was required to submit an annual Infrastructure Funding Statement, setting out details of completed planning obligations and contributions collected and spent within the year. The preparation of the statement allowed greater transparency under S106 agreements.

Members were informed of an administrative error on the document in relation to one of the Long Bennington cases where the monetary contribution towards a community pot should have read £240 per person. This would be rectified within the document.

Members thanked the invaluable work from Officers.

A query was raised on stakeholder engagement and how Elected Members could put forward recommendations for S106 funding.

One Member requested that any questions on this report be brought up at the next meeting.

The Assistant Director of Planning confirmed that the factual document was required to be published by the end of the calendar year and the delegation sat with the Portfolio Holder.

It was encouraged that Parish and Town Council’s pre-empt ideas on sites on S106 funding, prior to the funding becoming available, alongside including this within their Neighborhood Plans.

It was clarified that the information on securing a S106 agreement would be the money that was required and evidence for need.

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED that the Committee:

Reviews the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (Appendix A) before its publication.

Agrees to receive a report regarding the review of Section 106 processes and practices in six months.

There were none.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 17:23.